Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Tate hates Vietnam Vets like the War Protestors Did
2,371 Posts in 149 Topics by 217 Members
Latest Member: Sweesiultew
* Home Help Search Login Register
| |-+  THE MAD GALAHS FORUM--This forum does not necessarily reflect AVMs opinion. CLICK HERE FOR AVMS OPINION
| | |-+  TJ Wiltshire, Stumbles Tate & the DVA VVNR
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: TJ Wiltshire, Stumbles Tate & the DVA VVNR  (Read 12005 times)
« Reply #4 on: Sunday09May2010 »

Following much seeking after truth and delving into Army Records and promotion processes -- thanks Fergus! -- I need to elaborate on the statement I made on 12 Aug 2009. It would appear that CARO's records were correct and the error was in DVA's Nominal Roll, as I stated in my previous posting (below). By the time I made the posting, CARO had advised DVA to amend the Nominal Roll entry to reflect their records. This action resulted from correspondence between the veteran and CARO. The amendment raised the veteran's rank as described on the Nominal Roll by two stripes. DVA has yet to agree to go a step further, i.e. to acknowledge the veteran's acting rank when he left Vietnam, which would recognise the additional stripe (to Acting Sergeant) that he carried for the last four or five months of his active service in Vietnam in 1967. Information on DVA's Vietnam Roll website in regard to 'Rank' states: The rank (substantive, acting or temporary) held by the individual on either their last day or date of death in the operational area. (My emphasis.) The veteran is hoping that DVA is willing to adhere to this criterion, but I understand a directive would need to be issued by CARO. I'll update later.
« Last Edit: Monday10May2010 by Brat » Logged
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday12August2009 »

Thanks Fergus. Actually, I did mean the the DVA Nominal Roll. I can email you his name, but let me check with him first for all of the details. He's been talking to the records people and I don't want to annoy anyone into demoting him again!

He was listed with a strange sort of temporary/acting rank, almost as low as they could go and we laughed about it at a recent reunion (although it isn't funny). He was really a substantive two-striper and acting three stripes for some time in Vietnam. In fact, he filled the roll of sergeant for the whole of his tour of active service, as our section didn't have a substantive sergeant appointed. We were always short of qualified personnel and even I was sent over as a semi-trained Nasho to fill the roll of a fully-trained operator.
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday12August2009 »


Send the name of the person who is listed three ranks below the rank he held whilst in Vietnam to AVM and I will straighten it out for you. If what you say is correct it is in fact a very easy job to fix it. When you say "official records"  and "his records" are you referring to the DVA nominal roll.? It is not AVM's roll to take on this kind of work, however, I am interested in the accuracy of what you have said.


« Reply #1 on: Wednesday12August2009 »

Being a newbie, I'm reading material that's a few moons old. I'd just like to support Mowgli's comment that official records are not necessarily accurate. The records have my section leader (Vietnam 1967) classified three ranks below what he actually was and it's not an easy job to get the records corrected. After his query/complaint and some agitation from those who served with him, they've 'promoted' him slightly to a temporary/acting status at the next level. Absolute nonsense! I wonder how many years it's going to take to set his record straight!

« Last Edit: Wednesday12August2009 by Brat » Logged
« on: Tuesday31March2009 »

Fergus Fairfax has already commented soundly on TJ's stupid attempt to denigrate Gen. Peter Cosgrove.
Read a section of TJ's email rants here again.

From: Jim Wiltshire


Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 7:30 PM

Subject: Are you indeed? "We are motivated by truth" Let's find out.

Hello Fergus

Pursuant to the public boast of you and your anzmi aka avm mates, We are motivated by truth, you are challenged to transparently investigate this funny record of one of your official red hat heroes.

During the combined successful research to validate the 2nd D&E Platoon, we discovered that a fellow by the name of Cosgrove was declared a hero on the 10 and 15 October 1969 whilst commanding 5 Platoon, 9 RAR whilst also the posted platoon commander of the HQ 1 ATF D&E Platoon.

 Officially Cosgrove spent from 21 AUG 69 - 29 SEP 69 as 5 Pl Comd B Company 9 RAR, a period of only 39 days!

Remainder of his time he was with HQ 1 ATF (D & E Pl ) during 30 SEP 69 - 30 JUL 70!. The citation says he was in one place and the official record says he was in another?

Perhaps you can transparently clarify to the ANZAC community if there was an administrative error in this fellows record of service or was there another reason for this confusing time and place musical chairs? Could the explanation have some correlation with that fellow Private Peter Allen who murdered Rob Convery on the 23 November 1969, liking Cosgrove even less?



Jim Wiltshire 107 Phillips St Wodonga 3690  Phn:  02 6024 1079.   Mob: 0412 161 047.

PS. Exactly where was Cosgrove sleeping the night Convery was murdered?


Wiltshire included a copy of Gen. Cosgrove's DVA nominal roll entry athat he ragards as an "Official Record"   How long have veterans known that while this roll is a very useful tool. it's not 100% accurate?  The General's entry is wrong as confirmed by AWM Director Gen. Steve Gower.

I have some questions for TJ and his wannabe mate Don.

Is Gen. Gower's confirmation yet another "Red Hat Brigade- Generallisimo" conspiracy? I imagine you and your galah mates would believe so.

Are you really such a dolt that you would go after the General on the basis of a DVA VVNR entry?  Did your mate Barry Corse wind you up to do that for him?

I want you all to read what Mike Kelly MP wrote on 22 April 08 to Jenny George MP who, under threat of denial of the veteran vote next time she stood for election, peddled Tate's Sabre Force claim.
I'll quote Dr, Kelly.
"It seems Maj Pratt was directed by HQ (Coy) 1ATF to employ the Infantry Soldier being transferred from 4 RAR as a force to work with the Cavalry. The men were not entered on the Company roll book until 19 May 1969, and the watermanship training occurred on 12-13 May 1069. It is surmised the the men were still on the 4 RAR roll book, but this cannot be proven. However, as the tasking to conduct the training is addressed to HQ Company and 1 Field Squadron it appears that the platoon was already under the command of HQ Coy by 12 May 1969. Researchers cannot find a reference in 4 RAR or Task Force diaries" end quote.

If history is going to be twisted, I can do a bit of that myself, watch this.
I'll emulate Don Tate and his galah mates and make a totally unsubstantiated claim. 
The men who undertook that watermanship training on 12 May 69 were not part or all of the 4 RAR group.  They were from 1 ARU and were tasked to form the basis of Duck Force as part of the D&E Platoon.  Secrecy meant that the men could only be referred to in records as a "new D&E Platoon"
All Duck Force records were destroyed after it was found that none of the men could swim and the Force scrapped.  The men were sent on patrol in hilly country well away from any rivers.  The only remaining evidence is that 1 Fd Sqn reference to a new platoon.

Tate and other 4 RAR transfers. "The men were not entered on the Company roll book until 19 May 1969" and that is when Tate's "Sabre Force" was born, 19 May 69.   The first Op was one (1) section of eight (Cool men with 2 Troop 3 Cav in AO Scorpion on 23 May 69. This same section moved with the 2 Tp Group to Thua Tich on 28 May.

Tates DVA nominal roll entry, Headquarters, 1st Australian Task Force   14/05/1969     25/06/1969
" it appears that the platoon was already under the command of HQ Coy by 12 May 1969"  So why does Tate's entry show 14 May?  And why does it show 14 May when all reliable evidence says 19 May?  Who altered that date? On whose say-so was it altered?  Tates?

This should be the Tate DVA VVNR entry, someone please have it changed.
Headquarters, 1st Australian Task Force   14/05/1969     25/06/1969

Now, Trevor Jim Wiltshire, you obviously put a lot of stock in the accuracy of nominal roll entries as official records so how could you have believed your good mate Tate when he said his Sabre Force kicked off with watermanship training on 12 May even though his, and others, DVA VVNR entries show 14 May? 

Barry Corse has too much influence on lesser lights like you, Tate and "Cambodia" Dave Briggss.  He'll see your credibility destroyed even further as you expound his conspiracy theories. This may even drive the veteran community at large to deny you access to their email inboxes forever.
Be a good grandad Jim, go and play tennis with your grand kids instead of dealing with that madman Corse.
Sports   Tennis, Swimming, Gymnastics. Used to be good at all of them.

I forgot, you can't play tennis now can you?  You probably haven't pounded around a hard tennis court since well before your Army enlistment in (what year was that?) when you needed special shoes and were exempted from long marches.

Wake up to yourself Jim.


* Wilt43.jpg (532.01 KB, 1419x2229 - viewed 1084 times.)
« Last Edit: Tuesday31March2009 by Cassius » Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!